Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 19th, 2020

[Bob Rae]

Mr. Lowcock, would you get that?

[Mark Lowcock]

Sure. I'm happy to add a couple of points to what Ambassador Rae has just said.

Obviously, we're not happy to be in a position where we can't pay our own staff, the teachers, the health workers and others who provide these services to Palestinians. We would be very grateful for any additional support that enables us to keep providing those services to Palestinian citizens.

COVID has hit hard in Gaza and the West Bank. We've been able to get some assistance to help with that, but the underlying issues still faced in those places are acute. Millions of Palestinians are reliant on services that our Palestinian agency provides. We're broken-hearted, really, that this is now under threat.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you.

I would simply add, for Mr. Rae's benefit, that the committee met with Minister Gould a few days ago. We did ask her questions, and I must say that some of the answers weren't entirely satisfactory. We do hope announcements are forthcoming in terms of Canada increasing its humanitarian aid, precisely to address the statistics you mentioned.

I will now turn to Mr. Beasley. The COVID-19 crisis rages on, as do certain conflicts, and the race towards vaccines has intensified the competition, so to speak, for scarce international development resources.

Your organization provides food assistance to populations in need. Have you felt the impact of the COVID-19 crisis and the so-called race for resources? Both local resources and international development aid are scarce.

[David Beasley]

Quite frankly, there is 400 trillion dollars' worth of wealth in the world today, on earth, and it's heartbreaking that any child would go to bed hungry. There are plenty of resources. We have enough food to feed the world, but man-made conflict is our biggest problem right now.

We have a crisis this coming year, and hopefully it's a one-year crisis. I don't find—and Mark would probably agree with this—that I'm necessarily competing against UNICEF or WHO. We're all working together, and we have our different roles to play. Donors are stepping up, though we are going to be short of funding.

This is why I'm asking this committee to prioritize next year's.... It's like we have a fire in the house and my little girl wants to talk to me about buying a new chair, and I say, “I would like to talk about buying a new chair right now, but we have a fire in the house.” Next year, we'll have a fire. We have to really prioritize what's important. As I'm talking to other leaders, I think we all agree. Let's address these concerns. Let's work together.

My goal is to put the World Food Programme out of business. That is my goal. Unfortunately, I'm doing a lousy job of it right now, because of all this man-made conflict, but other donors have to step up. Canada has stepped up; Canada has been there. However, some of the donors, the Gulf states and other places, really need to step up. The private sector also has to step up, especially these billionaires who have made billions during this crisis. They have to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Mr. Beasley, we'll have to leave it there, but maybe we can circle back to this in subsequent questions.

The next round goes to Ms. McPherson, for six minutes.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the panellists who have joined us today. It's a real honour to speak to all of you.

I have to congratulate Mr. Beasley. I did a very unparliamentary “Whoop” when I got the news that you had won the Nobel Peace Prize. Congratulations.

My first set of questions will go to Mr. Rae. I've enjoyed listening to your interventions at the United Nations. I want to congratulate you on your bravery and taking such an important stance, but the reality remains that Canada is at a historically low level of ODA. We are historically not doing our part in the world.

I see we have contributed some dollars during COVID-19, but we have not contributed the 1% we probably should, at a bare minimum. Are you worried about that, considering our ODA was so low going into this, and considering we haven't heard anything from the minister or the government to make us feel confident that it's actually going to go up by any meaningful amount? What can we do to make sure that, as we go into 2021 with our house on fire, Canada doesn't continue to underperform?

[Bob Rae]

I've been very impressed by those countries that have reached a kind of national consensus on the fact that development assistance is beyond partisanship and should be seen as a foundational principle for their countries. I think it would be great if Canada could maintain the same level of consensus and understanding about why it's important for us to get our levels of development assistance up. I don't mean this as a comment or anything about Parliament, but there are very few questions in Parliament about the amount of development assistance. There are starting to be more now, which is great. I was as clear as I could possibly be while still being a special envoy of one particular government and saying, “Look, we simply have to do more.”

With COVID, I think we can make a very strong case as to why it's not just morally the right thing to do, but it's actually economically and socially the right thing for us to do. Otherwise, as Mark and David have said, we're going to have more conflict; we're going to have more migration; we're going to have more refugees. We're just going to go into a downward spiral, which is in nobody's interest. It's not in Canada's self-interest to do this.

I think there has to be a real effort, and frankly, I hope your committee can do this. There can be a consensus in the committee that there are some targets we should be trying to reach. We're not going to help reach the sustainable development goals by 2030 unless we integrate those goals into our own budgeting and what we do as a country. That's, ideally, where we should be.

That's about as much as I can say, except to assure you that I say this privately to my employer as much as I say it publicly. I really believe that we have to get our act together as a country and commit ourselves to taking these steps forward. I make this case all the time, and I would encourage the whole committee to make this case.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

Sir, you have the NDP on your side in the House of Commons at all times, of course.

[Bob Rae]

Well, that's a refreshing change, because sometimes when I was in the House I wasn't sure whether I did or not. That's a longer story and a longer conversation.

I think it's really important to try to create greater consensus politically. This should not be an issue that divides Canadians. This should be an issue that unites us.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

This brings me up to a question. One of my dear friends, Doug Roche, whom of course you would know, has commented that 10% of what we spend on the military in the world would give us $190 billion to spend on the sustainable development goals, which is useful.

The question I'm going to ask is actually for Mr. Lowcock.

You talked about Canada playing a leadership role. You talked about Canada being a champion for making sure that we're fixing the inequality that Mr. Rae spoke of. How legitimate do you think it is for us to ask Canada to play that role when Canada is not playing a large enough role within our own aid levels? Do we have the legitimate ability to play that role anymore? Could you comment on that?

[Mark Lowcock]

I think that in the world out there, there's no getting away from the fact that if you want your ideas to carry influence and weight.... There are fantastic ideas coming out of Canada on these issues.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Fantastic words perhaps, yes.

[Mark Lowcock]

The last time I was in Ottawa, I had a very good day trying to have a debate and generate ideas on how to improve the position of women and girls in these countries. As David said, those are the most vulnerable people. Always, where you go, you're particularly struck by the vulnerability of women and girls.

If you want other people to take your ideas seriously, it doesn't half help to put your pocketbook behind them. I think some of the things that Canada has done over recent months have helped a lot with that.

Getting to that 0.7% and making progress on it would really amplify your influence. That's what others have found.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

That is still the measure that we use. It is still that 0.7% of GNI. The minister should be able to tell us at any given time what our percentage of GNI is. That's still the measurement that the world stage uses. Is that correct?

[Mark Lowcock]

That is correct. Fifty years ago, Lester B. Pearson had a terrific insight. It would be great if more countries acted on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Ms. McPherson.

Thank you, Mr. Lowcock.

The next round is a five-minute round. It goes to Mr. Chong.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to direct my questions and comments to Ambassador Rae again. I'd like to focus on foreign aid. I hope that's in order and that I won't be interrupted by Liberal members on the committee.

Ambassador Rae, I read your report, which the Government of Canada posted on its website. Your report, as special envoy of the Prime Minister, I thought was a very erudite and frank assessment. In fact, I've been quoting it in the House of Commons to raise awareness about the issue. I think you raised a very good point in that report by highlighting that declining or stagnant national income is no way to meet our foreign aid targets.

On a serious note, it's clear that no Canadian government over the last number of decades has met our foreign aid target, which is 0.7% of GNI. In fact, foreign aid has declined by some 10% compared to the previous government.

I have a political question for you, a serious political question. In light of the fact that no Canadian government, whether it was Conservative or Liberal, has met that target, practically speaking, what do you think the long-term target should be for the Government of Canada? Should it be to maintain levels at 0.27%? Should it be 0.3%? Should it be 0.5%?

Most people I talk to think that 0.7% isn't realistic, so I'd be interested to see what you think is a long-term target, let's say a 2030 target, that we should be aiming for. Second, how do we get there politically?

[Bob Rae]

Let me just start by saying that I think Mark Lowcock said it correctly when asked if 0.7% is still the gold standard. The answer is yes, it is. The question then becomes, well, where are we in all this? The argument I made in the report is that we should be doing more. The other part of the report was saying that we should be doing more because it's the right thing to do morally, but also because it makes the most sense for the world, and it makes the most sense for Canada.

I don't have a number in the back of my head. What I do believe very strongly is that it would be in all of our interests for the government to try to talk to all the parties in the House of Commons about having a strategy such that, regardless of what the overall economic circumstances are, we would strive to deal with increases that would be steady and that would carry us through. I'm not going to get into a political debate here, but if some parties say we should be cutting foreign assistance by 25%, it becomes a little more difficult to do that.

More seriously, I think the big challenge we have is with Canadians: that is, to say to Canadians, “Look, this is an investment in our collective future as global citizens. In the service of the planet, in the service of humanity, this is what we're going to need to do. These are the steps we're going to have to take over time.” We're going to have to show people that it is going to make a difference, that it's actually going to assist in reducing poverty and that it's going to help achieve the sustainable development goals, which, frankly, also have to be explained to Canadians, why these goals are important and what it takes.

If other parties don't agree with the government, I would still encourage the government to ask, “What is our target? How do we increase this over time and how do we do it in a way that's affordable?”

I would also say that other countries are going through this discussion. There are reports that in the U.K. the debate is going the other way, which I think is really too bad. I think that's wrong. You know, the Brits have reached the 0.7% target. The Brits did agree, all parties—Conservative, Labour and Liberals—that they would stick to the 0.7% as a matter of national solidarity. That seems to be wavering a bit. I'm sorry if that's the case. I think it's really important that we all work together.

Frankly, the Brits are doing far more than we are. It's not that I'm criticizing the U.K. at the moment. I just think we have to decide that we have to do more on a systematic basis. In particular, we have to do it now. In particular, we have to respond to this crisis as we find it. That's exactly what we have to do.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Ambassador Rae.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chong and Ambassador Rae.

Colleagues, this brings us to the end of our scheduled time with these witnesses. It's pretty much exactly 5:30.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank our three extraordinary civil servants and witnesses this afternoon for spending time with us. We had a very compelling and thought-provoking hour. We wish you had more time, obviously, but you have given us a lot to think about. To each of you, thank you for being with us. Thank you for your service and all the good you are doing around the world. We will continue to watch your social media feeds and your teams very closely. We look forward to interacting with you again in the future.

With the concurrence of the committee, we now stand adjourned until our next meeting.

We wish everybody a good evening. Thank you so much.